Volume #27 - 159.|
ORGANISATION DU TRAITÉ DE L’ATLANTIQUE NORD
RÉUNION MINISTÉRIELLE À ISTANBUL, 2 AU 4 MAI 1960
Note du chef de la 1ère Direction de liaison avec la Défense|
pour le sous-secrétaire d’État aux Affaires extérieures
le 22 janvier 1960|
Reference: NATO Telegram No. 90 of January 13.†
NATO MINISTERIAL MEETING — SPRING 1960
The NATO Secretariat has proposed dates for the meetings of experts charged with preparing the usual background papers for the spring Ministerial meeting, which is to be held in Istanbul from May 2 to 4. According to the tentative schedule, the meetings would be held in Paris on the following dates:
(a) Middle East March 14 - 16
2. The Chairman of the Political Advisers’ Committee intends also to propose the reconvening of the Committee on Africa and has raised the question of how the Africa studies might be integrated into the normal pattern of NATO political studies prepared for the Ministerial meetings.
3. A copy of the telegram under reference is attached. We are asked to inform the Delegation before the next meeting of the Political Advisers’ Committee on Tuesday January 26 whether we intend to be represented at the meetings and, if so, whether the proposed dates are satisfactory. The views of the Divisions concerned are as follows.
4. European Division recommends participation in the meetings on Soviet trends and Eastern Europe and has, on January 19, sent a letter over your signature to Mr. Ford† asking if it would be possible for him to again represent the Department at those two meetings.
5. Middle Eastern Division has suggested that Mr. Beaulieu from Beirut attend the Middle East meeting. We understand that a memorandum of January 21 from Middle Eastern Division to Mr. Glazebrook, which sets out Middle Eastern Division’s reasons for their recommendation, has been passed to you by Mr. Glazebrook.
6. Far Eastern Division has also recommended representation at the Far East Meeting. They pointed out that the personal contacts made in such a meeting would be of considerable value to their representative and to the Department in gaining a greater familiarity with the views of the other NATO countries on the problems we face in the Far East and also in the impetus such discussions give to taking a fresh look at these problems. Of equal importance is the fact that our participation would give us an opportunity to present the Canadian views on various aspects of Far Eastern affairs “on the ground level” when the first draft of the background paper is being prepared. On occasion there is considerable divergence between our views and those of other NATO countries on a particular problem and it is difficult for our Delegation to argue for and to achieve substantive amendments at a later stage. In this context difficulties were encountered in connection with the last Far Eastern paper prepared in NATO when we found ourselves in disagreement with almost the whole of the section devoted to the situation in Laos. These difficulties point up the fact that through our membership on the International Commissions for Indochina, Canada represents a particular point of view with respect to the Indochina states which, we think, could usefully be brought to the attention of other NATO members in preparing a balanced assessment of the situation in that particular area. Far Eastern Division has in mind Mr. T.M. Pope as our representative.
7. In the opinion of this Division, participation in all the meetings would be desirable for the reasons put forward by the other Divisions in making their specific recommendations. It would also provide tangible evidence of our proclaimed willingness to intensify the process of political consultation in NATO. If, however, priorities must be established, we would assume that participation in drafting the papers on Soviet trends and Eastern Europe would be of first importance, particularly because of the extent to which the NATO Ministerial meeting will be concerned with preparations for the Summit Conference. As the forthcoming meeting is to be held in Turkey, it is possible that Middle Eastern problems may receive increased attention, and second place should probably be given to the Middle East experts’ meeting. Our particular concern with the Far East would no doubt make it useful to have an influence in the discussions on that subject. If participation could be arranged, it would provide balanced Canadian representation in preparations for the Ministerial meeting.
8. Pending word from Mr. Ford and Mr. Beaulieu, there would appear to be no comment to make at this stage on the proposed dates. If the dates are inconvenient for Mr. Ford and Mr. Beaulieu we would hope that it would be possible to change either the dates or the choice of representatives. The dates are set more in advance of the Ministerial meeting than usual, but this will probably be advantageous in that it will allow more time for consideration of papers by those concerned and for the mechanics of printing and distribution.
9. With regard to Africa, Commonwealth Division has discussed the NATO Secretariat’s ideas with Mr. Glazebrook and their view is that, although we regard Africa as still a particularly delicate topic for NATO discussion and although we still have misgivings as to the value of the project in relation to the risks involved, we should offer no objection to reconvening the Africa Committee or to the addition of its studies to the other area studies normally undertaken in advance of the Ministerial meetings. Even if membership of the Committee on Africa were to be thrown open before the next Ministerial meeting, it is most unlikely that we would wish to send a representative.
10. If you agree, we shall inform the NATO Delegation that we hope to send experts to take part in all four of the scheduled meetings, but that we must reserve our position on dates until we have heard from the proposed representatives to the Soviet Trends and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East meetings.1
1Notes marginales :/Marginal notes: